User talk:Jenks24/Archive 2

AFL Detailed Matches
Hi Jenks, I believe that my method is more tidy and organised to have it like: Player A, Player B, Player C 2 Player D, Player E, Player F Rather that "Player A 2, Player B 2, Player C 2, Player D, Player E, Player F" mainly because it's less repetitive and more straight forward. Also that I beleieve that injuries and/or report should be left blank unless there is any. Many Thanks, --McAusten 00:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
I'm probably not the person to ask about strict interpretation of the rules, but this was a total mess, no context, no notability, no refs, non-encyclopaedic how-to. I'd tag for deletion because it was pretty irretrievable; if an admin disagrees, which in this case I think is unlikely, they can always change to a prod, so no harm done anyway  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ben Stratton
I'm sorry for placing the article up for PROD. I didn't know what I was doing then,   although I was thinking that there are too many Aussie rules articles that are stubs, and that there is not enough information for an article to achieve Start-class status, let along GA. I did have a look at the Notability guidelines on AFL players, but still remained adamant that the article could never achieve any significant statuses. After what seem to be very convincing points and arguments, from you and user The-Pope, which made my actions look very foolish, I decided to withdraw the PROD. Now I'm a happy chap getting on with things, and, to apologise for my actions, I will expand and format the article, and, if you need any help, I've made myself available should you have any help. May I just ask, out of curiosity, what footy team do you barrack for? Anyway, I won't do that again, unless something clearly violates the policies and guidelines. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble  07:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

David Price (soccer)
Jenks thanks for your opinion on David Price (soccer). Having David Price (Football born 1971) is fine with me but is there a way of deleting revision history? Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.158.73 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, administrators can delete revisions in an article's history. Could you please explain to me why you want this done? It must meet one of the criteria at Revision deletion. If it does I'll be happy to help you find an admin to do it (I'm not one, myself). Jenks24 (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of information in the revision history is not appropriate and has had to be changed and revised. Please advise for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.158.73 (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, if any of the stuff meets the criteria set out at Revision deletion, please tell me specifically what revisions need to be deleted and for what reasons (I had a look through the history and couldn't see anything that looked blatant, but then I'm unfamiliar with the article). Once you tell me what specifically needs to be deleted I'll contact one of the administrators in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests for you. Hope this helps, Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Leigh Newton
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

PP, P
Yes I know, thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. I only noticed because I do it all the time when I'm using cite book. Jenks24 (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't worried. I'm just pissed off because the stupid cite book template isn't working properly, so I have to change those little things by hand, and sometimes I forget, and being reminded of that is also not improving my mood. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been trying to use cite book today as well and been having the same problem, so I understand the frustration. Sorry if I came across a bit 'lecture'-y in the edit summary. Jenks24 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But what on earth could be the problem? I've asked my most knowledgeable geek, but they may be off-line. It's really irritating--in the article of mine you looked at, that second reference, it's really irritating to have to add editors and chapter title by hand. I wish I knew! If you ever find out, drop me a line please. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Kepler
No, I do not consider asking questions gaming the system. It is fair to ask someone who closed a discussion additional questions. Sometimes these do affect the closers decisions and changes can be made. I will admit that I did miss the bit about the previous move. However, I'm not convinced that the arguments that the current name is incorrect are the strongest. While reading a good part of the article and skimming some, it seems to be mostly about the spacecraft and what the spacecraft is achieving. So the arguments to keep it at this location seem to be the strongest. I think the biggest problem with the move positions is that the Kepler mission is just that a mission that the spacecraft will be trying to achieve. So the spacecraft is the key element here.

Also in looking at the way other satellites are disambiguated, spacecraft seems to be far and away the most common method. And for most of the ones I have looked at over time they also discuss the mission within the articles on the craft. This seems to reflect the guidance from WikiProject Spaceflight which seems to clearly favor spacecraft as the preferred form of disambiguation. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks so much for moving my essay! Could you direct me to the instructions for doing that sort of thing? Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

response to your AfD comment
Since the AfD has been closed (as speedy keep, making it ripe for DRV if we decide to go that route), I will respond to this here on your talk page instead.

I don't doubt Dr. Blofeld's good faith in creating the article. But in past AfDs when WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST was brought up, it was seen as disruptive to create articles on the other stuff during the AfD, as surely as it would be to nominate all the other articles of a type similar to the one under discussion if you were arguing that there was no way anything of that type could be notable (Years ago I initiated a purge of the many drinking games we had articles on at the time, after someone nominating one based on things Bert Blyleven said while calling Tigers' games on the radio brought them up during the other AfD (as if anyone ever actually plays those humorous drinking games based on TV shows, other than "Hi Bob"). I did not nominate all of them ... Quarters is clearly notable, after all). I nominated each one individually, and we were able to keep a few).

And what if someone had created Wedding cake of Prince William and Kate Middleton during the discussion? Would that not have violated WP:POINT as well? Things like that are why that page was created. Daniel Case (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll reply here if that's ok. Firstly, I would urge you not to take it to DRV, as it will create unnecessary drama. If you are serious about seeing this article deleted, I would wait a few months and then open a new AfD where you will presumably be able "look there's no lasting coverage". Anyway, on to the reason you're here. I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say that Blofeld was creating the articles in good faith. Looking at WP:NOTPOINTY (didn't even know that section existed) which states that making a point (which, I agree, is what Blofeld was doing) does not necessarily mean they disrupting Wikipedia to do it. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this; the only reason I commented in the first place is that I imagined it could have been very disheartening for Blofeld, who had gone to the effort of creating quite a few articles (a couple of which were a decent length), to suddenly be told that he has disrupted Wikipedia with his good faith contributions. I appreciate that you took the time to take this to my talk page. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I do take this to DRV (and I might wait a few days), it would be strictly limited to the issue of whether speedy keep justifies this. However, as I said in my message at Dr. Blofeld's page, maybe proposed mergers to a general list article is really the more productive course of action, since as I said I was not opposed to having coverage of the dress per se, just in a standalone article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand how you thought a speedy keep close was unjustified, although I think it probably unlikely that it would be overturned at DRV (but what would I know ;). In any case, I agree that PM is probably the most constructive option available, although I personally feel that the dress warrants a standalone article (whether or not I'm in the minority can be discovered at PM, I guess). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My idea would be that if you had a list article first, it would become clearer over time whether standalone articles were necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

open
as you have no email link - i cannot possibly make comment on something here - sigh SatuSuro 14:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ok you got it SatuSuro 14:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ta ditto SatuSuro 15:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * arrgh the irony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Day SatuSuro 02:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sitting at the computer too long and the bridge my wife travels over gets dingged http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/03/3206128.htm hmm SatuSuro 02:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Thank you for saying hi. It was quite nice of you. I hope others are nice, but I'm already starting to see there are major squabbles on wiki. BarkingMoon (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wedding dress of Grace Kelly
Hello! Your submission of Wedding dress of Grace Kelly at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol and reviewer granted
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also given you the reviewer right. See WP:REVIEWER and Help:Pending changes for more information. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, nice to know that I'm trusted :) Jenks24 (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * well millions aint :) SatuSuro 03:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome! Sadads (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Second Battle of Porto
hi. sorry but i don't know how to talk to you except by doing this =). im the guy who created an article in french on the second battle of oporto. I perfectly understand that it hasn't its place on wikipedia in english. I just didn't know that it wasn't possible to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike 1805 (talk • contribs)
 * Ok, great that you understand. Just a note that generally you should leave talk page comments at the bottom of the page and please sign your posts with four tilde characters (eg ~ ), which will generate your signature. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

AFL Hawthorn Link
Hey Jenks, is it possible to find an online source for proof that crowd at the Hawthorn v West Coast in round 4 this year is correct? I rather appreciate it if the source came for an actual http:// site rather that and offline source (e.g. newspaper) Many Thanks, -- McAusten (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Refs consistency
Hi there, noticed that refs consistency was becoming a bit of a sticking point at the Covent Garden FAC and I really didn't want to see it get held up or derailed for such a small issue, so I went and (I hope) made the refs consistent for FAC standards (see diff). I really hope you don't mind and, with this out of the way, hopefully you can move on to more important stuff, like the actual writing in the article. Jenks24 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thanks for that.  SilkTork  *Tea time 07:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Inviting you for a test drive
Noticed your edit at Covent Garden, and thought another one of my scripts may be of interest to you: User:Ohconfucius/Sources.js. There's no documentation, but perhaps you could take it for a spin anyway and ping me if you have any questions or suggestions. Cheers. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh, looks interesting. Installed. Can be pretty time consuming to do by hand, so I'll be sure to give it a few goes. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wedding dress of Grace Kelly
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Amusing. Jenks24 (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Moles
I've declined the speedy as in the real ale world Moles is quite a well known outfit. I've added a ref, suggested to the author that he finds some more, and added links to Moles and (oddly) IMDb. Also added stub.) Peridon (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, ok, thanks for letting me know. Jenks24 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

level 2 headers
Hi, Sorry about this, and thanks very much for fixing it. That was a lapse on my part - It's been a hectic AfD... bobrayner (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's an easy thing to forget. Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Chris LeDoux discography
I've noticed you have added some "unreferenced" verbiage to the album pages i've been working on. I have tried on each page to cite the refernces i've used, but it never seems to work. Do you have a trick that I can use to get the info on there? All the info I have entered on to the pages is coming from the inside of the cassette liner notes, and the back of the record sleeves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin T Dalyai (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

AN/I Corvette
Yea, I saw your message after I had added a comment. Thanks for the heads up. BTW, no matter which way this closes, it is going to upset a bunch of editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you never noticed all of the RM discussions that are closed early. Sometimes they should have been listed as uncontroversial requests.  In some cases WP:SNOW works.  There there are ones like the Chinese ports with the IP contributions and POV battles. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Over There (Fringe)/archive1
Hi Jenks! Just wanted to ask if you would add your support at Featured article candidates/Over There (Fringe)/archive1, since I made the fixes you suggested. Thanks!  R uby2010  comment!  20:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Sadads
Hi Jenks24. Just a heads-up, I undid your change to Sadad's RfA, since he was trying to link to the category instead of include the RfA in that category. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes more sense now. I just saw the cat and removed it; probably should have investigated a little. Thanks for fixing that, Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Henry Alder
There's also a "Beverley" which competed in the Victorian Amateur Football Association. In 1902 there were very few recruits from WA, so I figured he more likely came from the VAFA club. I probably should have either left the category off the page, rather than made a guess. This would seem to confirm it though. Jevansen (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Move closure
Sorry about that, don't know where my head is at. Thanks for fixing it - very much appreciate it. Neutralitytalk 19:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
- Philippe 16:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed your post about Frederic Alfred d'Erlanger; it seems eligible for DYK, but I can't really think of an interesting hook. Any ideas? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  18:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion and now you mention it, I guess it would be eligible for DYK. The main reason I rarely submit articles to DYK is that I'm terrible at thinking up interesting hooks. Had a think about this article for a bit and all I can think of is something along the lines of "that millionaire banker, Baron Frederic Alfred d'Erlanger, was also a noted composer who wrote/authored/created an opera based on his friend Thomas Hardy's novel, Tess of the d'Urbervilles". Not all referenced in the article at the moment, but can be easily added with a gbooks search. To be honest though, not a very interesting hook, but then most of the hooks that get through are fairly similar to this. If you could think of something more interesting, it would be greatly appreciated, but that's probably the best I can do. Jenks24 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds interesting to me (especially the millionaire bit combined with writing an opera about Tess of the d'Urbervilles). I came up with "that banker and composer Frederic Alfred d'Erlanger wrote operas, financed South American department store chains, and participated in musical soirées of the Oxford & Cambridge Musical Club?" However, I think it's too unfocused and just jumps all over the place. Cheers, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you think so, then I'll add some refs and submit it to DYK. Hopefully doing so will be of some encouragement to HotFXMan (it can't be fun to have an article you create speedy deleted). Jenks24 (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, is 'wrote' the correct term for operas? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Also, I'm not sure—"wrote" seems fine to me, or maybe "composed"? If he made both the words and the music, maybe "wrote and composed". There's a List of major opera composers, so maybe "composed" is better, but I'm not totally sure. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  20:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, 'composer' sounds right to me. Anyway I've submitted the DYK nom (included you as one of the creators because without your comment here I wouldn't have thought about taking it to DYK). See T:TDYK. Ugh, and now as I look at it, it reads "was also a noted composer who composed"... Any suggestions on how to reword this (maybe jut change back to 'wrote')? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're right—the repetition is awkward and because it calls him a composer, using "wrote" probably is OK as a synonym of "compose". I've changed it at the nominations page. Cheers, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. Jenks24 (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

East Launceston Football Club
Perhaps with all those pointless edits you made, you might like to write the article yourself next time! It was fine the way it was. Forfuxake (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Lennert van Dessel
I checked it, he appears to be an actual excisting person. Not a well-known person, no, but not everyone who isn't well known online is automatically not known outside of the internet. Polozooza (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could tell PhGustav your findings and that you agree with me; he has not given me a reply yet and some support would be most welcome. Thanks in advance, Polozooza (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, chimed in with my $0.02 at his talk page. Jenks24 (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much appreciated. Polozooza (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone says its a hoax, and wants to delete it. That makes no sense as he DOES exist, he played a role in a movie in 2009: IMBN Polozooza (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Lennert van Dessel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lennert van Dessel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lennert van Dessel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. andy (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

South Australian National Football League
"We use the permanent non-commercial name" I wish you were correct - I personally prefer "the permanent non-commercial name". However, if you look at the table, you will see that you are quite wrong. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yep, I should have looked more closely at the table. To be honest I was going off a few discussions we've had at Australian Football League and 2011 AFL season where the general consensus was that we should use the non-commercial name for the AFL article (eg Docklands) and the commercial name for the season article (eg Etihad). Had a look at the talk page and it doesn't seem to have been discussed; do you think it would be worth one of us being bold and changing the whole table to non-commercial names? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I am but one person with a biased opinion, but if you were bold and changed it, I would be prepared to revert any opposition to your change that was not VERY well justified ... (i.e. Go for it!) Pdfpdf (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, with your support I've made the change. When I was going through the articles, it was interesting to note that the SANFL article was out of date with regards to what the commercial names actually were. Anyway, let's hope the change lasts... Jenks24 (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * as if to prove my point, many of the commercial names were out of date anyway! - How convenient! ;-)
 * Anyway, let's hope the change lasts... - I guess we'll find out... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP PROD
hi Jenks24, yup you're right, sorry about that. i actually did know that but appear to have momentarily forgotten whilst context shifting between debugging some java and new page patrolling. thanks for catching it. cheers -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback (AfD)
05:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  18:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on dashes
Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have commented there. Jenks24 (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Rollback on Signpost - thanks for the advice
I want to delete Signpost after reading it. By accident, I hit HaeB 's notice that Signpost had been posted, rather than the copy of Signpost on my Talk page. I will just have to be more careful in the future (although I don't understand why HaeB 's notice comes -- it was a change from when Signpos was just delivered. I don't want to get rid of Rollback because I use it a fair amount for vandalism. But perhaps I did not understand your suggestion. And most of all, thanks for your concern. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just followed your suggestion, and took Signpost off of my Wwatchlist. Sometimes, the obvious isn't so obvious (to me). Thanks. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something?
You thought the closing of Corvette was reasonable? And had good rationale? Did I read the same closing as you? What am I missing? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was reasonable. Although I, like you, wish that closing admins would simply weigh the strengths of the arguments (like what is supposed to happen in all consensus-building arguments on Wikipedia), the fact of the matter is that no admin was going to close the discussion as "moved" when the majority of the votes were for the article not to be moved (and the votes weren't from single purpose accounts, they were from experienced editors). There was no way that RM was going to be closed as anything other than "no consensus". The only part of the close I really thought was poor was the last sentence, which seemed to be implying that it was a small issue, there was no real problem if the "wrong" decision was made (but, again, no admin would not have closed as "no consensus"). My suggestion for this issue would be to wait a few months/a year and start a new discussion, possibly in a RfC style so as to get a broader input and dilute the "gut feeling" votes from WP:SHIPS. Jenks24 (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Frédéric Alfred d'Erlanger
Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Names of foreign players
Hello Jenks, I made two edits to support your thinking. , the reason being, you are right on the money with the wikipolicies. COMMONNAME is very clear and I wonder why is it so difficult for people to understand it. Probably that policy should be rewritten, but as it stands, you are properly following it. Divide et Impera (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and I too wonder why it is so hard for people to understand the article titles policy. To me, it seems entirely straightforward: use the name the majority of reliable English sources use. As I have been involved in a number of similar move discussions recently with similar issues, I would agree that perhaps the policy doesn't have the general consensus that it should, but when I suggest that people who don't agree with the policy get it changed at WT:AT, no-one seems interested in doing so. Jenks24 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Dabomb87 (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Grampa Simpson
What more do you want then the official website, 2 episode titles, and the official book? Or are you just basing it on Google search results, and somehow that's the best way? C T J F 8 3 21:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote policy: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" (my bolding). If you want me to, I can list 200+ books from a google books search that use "Grandpa". In any case, my point at Theleftorium's talk page was that the move is not uncontroversial, by which I mean I was not the only one arguing for "Grandpa" at the RM (although I will grant you there were more arguing for "Grampa"), and that it should therefore go through the requested move process. Jenks24 (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually no one argued for grandpa, they just typed that because grandpa is more common than grampa. Clearly common sense comes into name for this type of situation. And actually, yes, show me some Simpsons books that spell it grandpa. Your quote is definitely a stretch. It clearly means not 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione but caffeine or not Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei but Nazi. Blatantly ignoring the spelling of an official name isn't one of the examples. C T J F 8 3  22:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I did. But in addition, Marcus Qwertyus and SwisterTwister both clearly wrote that they supported a move to "Grandpa". How do you know that "they just typed that because grandpa is more common than grampa"? I know I certainly didn't, so my point that it isn't uncontroversial still stands. If you disagree with the wording of the article titles policy, or you want exceptions to be added, I would suggest taking it to WT:AT. I could perhaps understand your reasoning better if this was, for example, a BLP and they had explicitly requested their name be spelled a certain way, but it isn't. No-one will be harmed if we follow policy on this occasion. As to the sources, I will provide links shortly. Jenks24 (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources that use "Grandpa":, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, ,, . This is only from a google books search (and is by no means all of the results from the search), but I think it proves my point that "Grandpa" is clearly a credible spelling, that your request was not uncontroversial and that it should go through RM. Jenks24 (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I wanted actual Simpsons books, not just mentions in other books. But I'll start another damn RM that'll take another month to sort this out. C T J F 8 3  23:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Several of the books above are specifically relating to The Simpsons, but I fail to see how the ones that are on, say, American television, are any less relevant for determining the common name. I'm sorry if this has upset or frustrated you as that was never my intention. Jenks24 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Frustrating yes, when I give you 4 official sources of the name spelling. Including the official website, and 2 episode titles. I guess I'll start a new RM when I get home and log in. C T J F 8 3  23:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, I've thought about this a bit more and I think I can see the conclusion that the RM would have. It would result in most Simpsons editors voting for it to be moved (per your reasoning that that's what the official sources use) and a few (read minority) opposing per COMMONNAME. There are a lot of WikiProjects that don't follow COMMONNAME to the letter and I guess there's no reason The Simpsons should be any different. In any case, I think that arguing this out with you at a RM for months would be counter-productive for both of us, so I'll go to Theleftorium's talk and strike what I've said there. On a more general note, this may be the straw that broke the camel's back in some ways; I've recently been copping a bit of flak for following COMMONNAME to the letter at RMs and, more often than not, the closing admin has agreed with the majority rather than those advocating to follow policy. Perhaps I'll get some motivation and start a discussion myself at WT:AT. TL;DR? No need to start a RM, I will withdraw my objection and hopefully we can move on as if this never happened. Apologies for wasting your time. Jenks24 (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, no waste of time at all. Thank you for your understanding, C T J F 8 3  21:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Expand Templates
I've just removed the citation templates at 2010 Nobel Peace Prize using ExpandTemplates. The function has inserted a ton of  tags into the article, bloating it by 36kB :-( Would you happen to know what precise function these serve, and whether it would be safe to remove them? If not, I might have to revert the change. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * now done. :-))) -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, just logged on and was about to say that it didn't seem like they had a useful purpose and it would probably be safe to remove and then I see that you've just finished doing it anyway :) Jenks24 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)